DPP v Matheas [2016] VCC 1521

Sentence summary: Rape

Warning: The following may contain graphic content that may not be suitable for some audiences – viewer discretion is advised.

The offender met a 17-year-old girl and convinced her he was a famous and wealthy motorcyclist. He lured her to his home by falsely telling her other people would be meeting them there and confronted her naked, with an erection, and wearing a condom. He forcibly removed her clothing, pulling her hair, strangling her and threatening to kill her as she screamed and fought back. She stopped struggling, and he penetrated the victim’s vagina with his penis and ejaculated. Though he was wearing a condom, sperm was introduced to the victim’s vagina.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of rape.

The judge said it was a terrifying and violent act on a naïve and impressionable young girl. The offender was a serious sexual offender who had been convicted acts of rape that occurred a few months after this offending. His criminal history, including convictions for making threats to kill, stalking and assault with a weapon, pointed to a violent man.

The offending was in the moderate to high range of seriousness. It was no opportunistic rape, but a trap that he set. It was a violent attack that carried the risk of pregnancy and STIs for the victim.

As a serious sexual offender, protection of the community was the principal sentencing objective. The offender did not have any significant matters to call on to mitigate his sentence. He had not shown remorse and his rehabilitation prospects were negligible.

The offender was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for the charge of rape. The judge ordered that six years of this sentence be served cumulatively on a 10 year sentence the offender was already serving. This made a total effective sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment and a new non-parole period of 12 years was set.

The offender appealed to the Victorian Court of Appeal (‘VSCA’) against his sentence (Christos Matheas v The Queen [2017] VSCA 330). The VSCA dismissed the appeal and agreed that the features of the case meant that the sentence was not excessive and that the emphasis on community protection was appropriate [37]-[39].

Was this page helpful?

Page last updated: 11 September 2019